The court affirmed that additional evidence can only be presented in appeals if valid reasons are shown for significant delays, highlighting the necessity of timely legal proceedings.

COMMON ORDER:

Since a common issue arises in these criminal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.4778 of- 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.04 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.1295 of 2017 by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

3. Crl.P.No.4779 of 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.67 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1295 of 2017 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and Sessions at L.B. Nagar.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed petitions under Sections 391 and 242(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to receive the notice dated 04.05.2015 issued to D. Ram Reddy and to take additional evidence. The petitioner contended that she filed criminal appeal against the judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed in C.C.No.246 of 2016 by the learned Special Magistrate at Hayathnagar, wherein she was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’). It is further stated that petitioner along with her husband obtained a hand loan from one D. Ram Reddy for a tune of Rs.50,00,000/- on 15.06.2014 and in respect of the same, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties, which was already marked as Ex.D2 and further the petitioner and her husband in pursuance of the said Memorandum of Understanding, issued 5 Cheques each in total 10 cheques to D. Ram Reddy. The subject matter cheque in the present case is one of the cheques issued by the petitioner to D. Ram Reddy. It is further stated that the petitioner has already paid total loan amount along with interest to D. Ram Reddy, but he withheld the cheque without returning it to the petitioner and by suppressing the material facts filed the complaint case through G. Venkat Reddy.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a criminal case against the above said persons for the illegal acts and have already issued reply notices to the counsel for respondent along with copy to respondent, cautioning not to misuse the promissory notes and cheques and further directed to return them without misuse. Later the Petitioner also got issued a notice to D. Ram Reddy on 04.05.2015, but the same was returned unclaimed. Due to oversight, the said notice was not marked in support of her case in the trial court which is very crucial document to decide the case, as such requested the court to receive the same as additional evidence at the appellate stage.

6. On the other hand, the respondent therein filed a counter denying the petition averments and requested the court to dismiss the petitions.

7. The trial court, upon hearing both sides, observed that there is delay of about 07 years in filing the petitions and the said document could not be produced before the trial court and failed to explain proper reasons for inordinate delay in filing the petitions with cogent and corroborative evidence. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the petitions, holding that even if the said document is received in appellate court, no purpose would be served except wasting valuable time of the court and the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the present criminal petitions.

8. Heard Sri E. Sreenivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State and Sri S.M. Rafee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

9